Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
31 <br /> ...rd Elmo <br /> 2102. West Club Boulevard <br /> Durham, N.C. 27705 <br /> 26 June 1989 <br /> Mr. Barry Jacobs <br /> Chairman, Orange County Planning Board <br /> Route 6, Box 473 <br /> Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 <br /> Dear Mr. Jacobs: <br /> We will be moving into our new house on 6411 Mimosa Drive in <br /> a few months and find ourselves drawn into the controversy over <br /> the proposed Homewood Subdivsion's cluster design. We strongly <br /> oppose the developer's proposed cluster design and emphatically <br /> support the alternative plan proposed by the staff of the Orange <br /> County Planning Department at the May 15th meeting of the <br /> Planning Board. <br /> We understand that the board split its vote at the May 15th <br /> meeting, allowing the project to move forward to the final <br /> approval stage at the July 17 board meeting. We ask that at this <br /> meeting you allow your staff to fully present its plan and, since <br /> it will be shown to be far superior to that proposed by the <br /> developer, that you approve your staff's plan. <br /> As disinterested professionals serving you and your fellow <br /> board members, your staff has provided you with a well thought <br /> out plan that carefully balances the competing interests of the <br /> developer, the neighboring communities, and the sensitive <br /> environment of Duke Forest which surrounds this new development. <br /> In contrast, it is not surprising that the developer would <br /> request a plan which ignores the adverse effects of his <br /> subdivision on the natural environment and on surrounding <br /> neighborhoods in favor of an asserted greater market value of the <br /> lots in the proposed new development. (Moreover, a better <br /> designed development plan is not likely to lower market value; in <br /> any case, prospective market value is not a legitimate <br /> consideration in the approval process for new subdivisions. ) <br /> Given your planning staff's public interest and professional <br /> competency and the self-serving interests of the developer, the <br /> reluctance of the board to support the recommendations of its own <br /> staff is surprising and disappointing. <br /> We had thought that new lots in this area were required to <br /> exceed two acres in size, but learned that the cluster design <br /> concept in Article 22 allows smaller lots if they protect <br /> critical environmental and natural features, provide recreation, <br /> and offer public benefit. Unlike the proposed staff plan, which <br /> reflects these ends, the developer's plan meets none of the <br /> ecological, aesthetic, and recreational conditions that justify a <br />